To be honest, I wish that some places would have child-free days or hours. Such as restaurants, stores, movies, etc

It's not that I dislike, or hate kids in particular. In fact, I like them and usually get along with them. But sometimes I would really like to go see a movie, go out to eat, or go to an attraction (such as a zoo or amusement park) without little kids screaming their heads off and running around.

I'm talking about small children (like 3-4 and under), and children that just can't behave themselves.

Do you wish that some places had child-free environments, or at least some hours for it? Or do you think that kids should be allowed anywhere?

Totes agree. I can't STAND it when a small child cries, gets me pretty mad inside, and tense outside.

Just a week or so ago, a family with at least 3 kids sat on the same bus as me. One kid sang "moo, moo, moo," the one sitting behind me said "a-a-a" or some such, and the third was about equally noisy. The parents didn't say anything to them. Giving them an annoyed glance sort of worked for a few minutes, but it quickly continued. I'm just glad they didn't follow all the way...

I don't mind kids, but they can be quite annoying at times, particularly when their parents have no control over them, or don't realize that their kids are being annoying. Babies often aren't the worst. Kids in the age between 1-5 tend to be a lot more noisy than little babies.

I don't think kids should be shut out of restaurants and movies. They've got just as much rights to have some fun. But perhaps personnel at movies or restaurants shouldn't be too afraid of telling the parents that their kids' behavior is disturbing. Often the parents are much worse than their kids, because it's their job to calm down their own kids when they're making trouble.

Perhaps you can try to go to movies after most kids' bedtime, or go to restaurants families don't frequently visit, or during hours when it's less likely there will be young kids around.

I think anyone who brings small children into a public place - unless the space is specifically designated for children - should have to pay a small fee for inconvenience to the staff and other people there. If the children run around wildly or make loud noises, then the fee is higher.

Just like adults who smokes cigarettes in public places, talk too loud, stand in a big lump of people blocking the sidewalk, getting drunk and throwing up in the streets, wears too much perfume, shows a little too much affection openly, don't wash their hands after toilet visits while dining in restaurants or visiting public places, and all those other things some people might find equally annoying?

By far, I prefer little kids running around, over many of the often equally annoying things some adults do.

Lots of kids are actually able to behave nice when out in public. Those who aren't well-behaved... well, just take a good, hard look at their parents, and you'll usually see where they get it from.

Kids must be allowed to be kids, and sometimes that involves running around, screaming your head off, such that crochety old neighbours out on their porch are likely to exclaim "Martha! Them dang Jameson kids is at it again!" *cane begins waving* "Get off my property, dang ya!". Of course, there are limits for that kind of behaviour and they should be taught where those limits are, but first, they need to find them. In the meantime, we can suffer the inconvenience or find ways around it that don't involve restricting them from being kids in public.

Because if we can't, we need a cane and a porch so that we can yell and scream about them dang kids yelling and screaming.

There should be a law put in place to restrict people from bringing their fucking babies into fancy restaurants and diners.

To be honest, that seems very unfair. Most people with small children are not the richest people on then planet, and we children are well behaved. I agree that if they cause an inconvenience, some punishment is in order. Although, perhaps restaurants should have an area for people with small kids.

No, restaurants shouldn't put in a section for small children. It's the parents responsibility to make sure their children are well behaved enough to scream fucking murder and/or cry in the restaurant.

I think people should just work on being more tolerant, with the exception of some places. It would be stupid to take small kids to see an R rated, or even PG-13 rated movie. They also don't need to be brought to your college or workplace because that's distracting. But it's not like parents can control everything their kids do, and if they need to go grocery shopping or go to the mall (like everyone does) there's not much to be done about it if they do start crying. If there is an area for children, though, then it should probably be used...this couple at my church was bringing their young baby into service just about every Sunday over the summer, even though there is a working available free nursery in the building. The baby always ended up crying about 20 mins into the service, and then they left about 15 mins after that. What was the baby even getting out of the sermon though? I was trying to have a Christian attitude about this but it doesn't make much logical sense to me.

I work as a preschool teacher and I believe if parents would simply discipline their children the way they need to be disciplined instead of letting them be their boss, having them in public would not be a nuisance.

That's why I suggested a small fee. And the point is to either make them watch their kids so they don't lose more money or leave the kids at home.

To everyone else: parents should be responsible for watching their kids, yes. The problem is, THEY'RE NOT. And the kids aren't simply annoying. Suppose a small child is running around at a fancy restaurant. A server trips over the kid. That is not simply annoying, that is dangerous. And I know of at least one case where the server lost their job over it.
And when kids shriek, it can startle people. Startled people tend to jump away. I saw one server who got second-degree burns this way: a kid shrieked right behind him, he jumped, and the coffee he was serving splashed up into his face.

I remember one incident where a kid was in the zoo, annoying a peacock and tugging on his tail feathers. The peacock pecked him hard enough to draw blood. The zoo no longer has peacocks, because of that stupid kid and his stupid parents, who threatened to sue the zoo over their negligence. Because they no longer have peacocks, they've lost business.
And the kid's parents did not get punished at all.
Oh, and the kid in question? He was banging on he leopard enclosure's glass earlier. It annoyed the leopard and he jumped up on the glass, scaring the kid away. You'd think the parents would have realized that their kid should not annoy animals.

Parents clearly need additional motive to supervise their children. A fee would both provide that and compensate the place for any damages the kids might cause.

Personally, I think if there are people doing things I don't like when I'm out and about of any age, in an ideal world I'd be allowed to call soldiers to come and beat them to death for my amusement and as a warning against loud noises and roughhousing in my vicinity. And as for what the rest of you like or dislike, I don't care. Let's face it, if we were in my ideal world I'd probably have each of you beaten half to death at least once just because a bad day I was having.

Since neither I nor anyone else lives in an ideal world though, I suspect the best thing to do is to attempt to be tolerant, patient, and kind to your fellow human beings no matter how shitty you regard their treatment of you. Ultimately, I suspect that's probably almost as rewarding as having people beaten to death just because you fancy it.

I hardly consider allowing tiny sociopaths to run rampant and injure people a tolerant, patient, or kind thing to do.

Well that's the thing isn't it? Is other people letting tiny sociopaths run rampant enough of an excuse to be an intolerant asshole or not?

Intolerant of people getting injured, incurring property damages, and losing jobs for the sake of uncontrolled crotch dumplings, you mean? Why yes, I am.

Let's think about animal policies. In many places, animals that aren't service animals are not allowed, no matter how well-behaved they are. That's because they may accidentally harm people (directly, like knocking them over, or indirectly, like allergies), they may be a distraction, or they may mess the place up. Of those factors, only the allergies don't apply to children (or at least, being allergic to children is very rare). And quite a few kids behave WORSE than the average pet. Why, then, are kids allowed when pets aren't?

It doesn't matter if they're small humans. I don't want my safety -or anyone else's - put at risk because someone else has a complex over their mini-thems.

I agree - I was going to write a rant about people who bring their 3 year old to a 9:30 show of World War Z, but then I thought about it and I'm not exactly perfect nor was I a perfect parent, so who am I to judge.
Children in public places don't bother me, even when they're screaming. I'm just so happy and grateful that they're not mine.

Well said.
This was pretty much the thought running through my head when I just a few days ago happened to walk by a toddler lying on the floor in the middle of a screaming fit outside a shop, with his parents standing over him, trying their best to calm him down.

Right. I'm not going to suggest that annoying children don't bother me. They do. But ultimately I regard annoying children as vastly superior to annoying adults, and one of the notions that annoys me in adults is this idea that it's okay to be complete dicks to and about children.

Although I am famed on this board for wanting large of kids, right now, I just entered the dating scene 5 months ago, so kids screaming would ruin the mood I want to be lost in. So segregated sections, restricted days\hours and "bad parenting" fees...Don't sound like a problem.

Parenting is not the funnest thing, even if your children are adversarial cats, but keeping order in public or any place is part of being a mom or dad.

Besides, this is nothing new, as this was brought up a couple years back to report one airlines' decision to keep babies off flights.

For the Christian in the audience, one church I used to frequent had "crying rooms" which would allow mothers with colicky babies be able to attend church.

I need to say this...Bringing a baby to a PG-13 or R rated movie is about as dumb as dumb gets. When I was young, I could only attend G rated movies alone until age 10. All PG movies involved a grown up until the cut off. I would see the appropriate movie at the appropriate age.

My thoughts do NOT fully reflect me as a whole. I love kids and I will teach them to behave in public.

What I really want is for people to:

1. Teach their children manners.
2. Let their children play and run around outside more often. This is one of the biggest problems. A lot of parents won't let their children outside anymore and all that energy gets pent up and they end up becoming hyperactive and obnoxious. Even if they don't let them outside, have one room in the house designated for running around and being active. Jesus, people, your kids don't need ritalin, they need physical activity!

How about instead of letting your little shits run rampant and scream like someone is trying kill them, you stop brushing it off as the norm and dish out some fucking discipline?

You're young enough yourself that you're going to be a little shit run rampant for at least another decade... õ_o

Are you on drugs? I'm 16, old enough not to be a rampant running shit.

I'm 42. You're a child and you're going to stay a child until your mid-twenties or so.